11 Nov 10
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20022390-10391704.html?
Can the federal government scare cigarette smokers into stopping with a new campaign of horrific images to be placed on cigarette packages?
They're certainly going to try.
Images of corpses, cancer patients, and diseased lungs are just some of whats in store in graphic new warning labels.
The images are part of a new visual campaign announced by the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services on Wednesday to reduce tobacco use, the Associated Press reports, which is responsible for about 443,000 deaths per year.
No guts to outlaw the substance and destroy a profitable industry and yet no trust in the personal responsibility of the people.
Sad.
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by sh76Sadder still? This country was built upon the genus Nicotiana, owes its very existence to the demand of the stuff. What's next? Cotton? Sugar?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20022390-10391704.html?
[quote]Can the federal government scare cigarette smokers into stopping with a new campaign of horrific images to be placed on cigarette packages?
They're certainly going to try.
Images of corpses, cancer patients, and diseased lungs are just some of whats in store in graphic new warning la ...[text shortened]... oy a profitable industry and yet no trust in the personal responsibility of the people.
Sad.
11 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76It happens all over the world, here in Aus they have the graffic pictures and high tax, but you see, they have an excuse here, once the state takes charge of your healthcare they can then stake a claim on you, on your health. The other insidious side of the state healthcare coin. Smokers represent a risk so the state is justified in regulating that risk.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20022390-10391704.html?
[quote]Can the federal government scare cigarette smokers into stopping with a new campaign of horrific images to be placed on cigarette packages?
They're certainly going to try.
Images of corpses, cancer patients, and diseased lungs are just some of whats in store in graphic new warning la ...[text shortened]... oy a profitable industry and yet no trust in the personal responsibility of the people.
Sad.
In NZ a shop was banned from selling a cover that you could slip over the state sponsored graffiti.
Cigar shops are not allowed to advertise openly.
In Aus right now they'e kicking around the idea of notices on fast foods.
It'll never be enough they have to keep po oping out more and more regulations staking an ever greater claim on your life and property.
Sad indeed that this is being considered in the states can't it be defended on the grounds of freedom of expression?
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by sh76I agree...it is sad in a way. But what's the alternative? Pass a law against smoking tobacco? The government's done that with pot, and see how well that worked? (yeah...right). I can see no good options here. It's a new one on America however, so let's see if it does any good. 🙁
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20022390-10391704.html?
[quote]Can the federal government scare cigarette smokers into stopping with a new campaign of horrific images to be placed on cigarette packages?
They're certainly going to try.
Images of corpses, cancer patients, and diseased lungs are just some of whats in store in graphic new warning la ...[text shortened]... oy a profitable industry and yet no trust in the personal responsibility of the people.
Sad.
11 Nov 10
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76Isn't it the sensible middle ground? It would be an infringement of personal rights actually to outlaw smoking, but it is legitimately a government's duty to discourage, without forbidding, behaviour that causes the participant physical harm.
No guts to outlaw the substance and destroy a profitable industry and yet no trust in the personal responsibility of the people.
Sad.
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeI'd ban cigarette because its a dangerous product but that's not going to happen.
Isn't it the sensible middle ground? It would be an infringement of personal rights actually to outlaw smoking, but it is legitimately a government's duty to discourage, without forbidding, behaviour that causes the participant physical harm.
Smoking has huge real costs and as medical expenses continue to rise faster than inflation so do these costs. As long as we use medicare and medicaid money for smokers, the government has a legitimate economic claim to get money back for its expenses and a legitimate economic goal in discouraging thier use. Its not justa personally responsibility issue when others pay for a person's dumb choice.
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by quackquackIf tobacco was banned, you'd have one more thing for the drug-dealers to sell - and you'd end up having to spend a whole bunch of additional money to arrest and imprison tobacco users - where they would all learn how to become hardened criminals.
I'd ban cigarette because its a dangerous product but that's not going to happen.
Smoking has huge real costs and as medical expenses continue to rise faster than inflation so do these costs. As long as we use medicare and medicaid money for smokers, the government has a legitimate economic claim to get money back for its expenses and a legitimate eco ...[text shortened]... e. Its not justa personally responsibility issue when others pay for a person's dumb choice.
And the end result would likely be an increase in the the percentage of people who smoke.
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeYes, but making them put pictures of corpses on the product? Really?
Isn't it the sensible middle ground? It would be an infringement of personal rights actually to outlaw smoking, but it is legitimately a government's duty to discourage, without forbidding, behaviour that causes the participant physical harm.
If the government wants to advertise that smoking is bad, fine. But to make private companies use scare tactics to scare consumers away from their own products is over the top.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28919
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by sh76Nothing in your post makes sense. Seriously? Have you ever been a smoker? The nicotine monkey can gaze at pictures all day and all night and still keep puffing. If you trust anyone to quit any addictive substance then you are delusional.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20022390-10391704.html?
[quote]Can the federal government scare cigarette smokers into stopping with a new campaign of horrific images to be placed on cigarette packages?
They're certainly going to try.
Images of corpses, cancer patients, and diseased lungs are just some of whats in store in graphic new warning la ...[text shortened]... oy a profitable industry and yet no trust in the personal responsibility of the people.
Sad.
The pictures are obviously meant to discourage children from starting to smoke. If it works for one kid out of a million then it will be worth it.
So, considering that this restricts no one's rights and merely provides information to those who need it then WTF is wrong with it?
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesWhat about the positives of banning substances? There would certainly would be people who would not use the product if it were banned. Illegal activity might be a grounds for denying expensive medical treatments. It would increase protections of people who are vitcitms of second hand smoke. It might make the message of the dangers of smoking clearer for some. It could make it more difficult for minors to obtain. It might make it seem less glamorous. It would get rid of the social smoking aspect in many settings. We ban less dangerous, less costly things.
If tobacco was banned, you'd have one more thing for the drug-dealers to sell - and you'd end up having to spend a whole bunch of additional money to arrest and imprison tobacco users - where they would all learn how to become hardened criminals.
And the end result would likely be an increase in the the percentage of people who smoke.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28919
11 Nov 10
Originally posted by quackquackThis is not about banning or allowing. It is about providing accurate information so citizens can take responsibility by making an informed choice.
What about the positives of banning substances? There would certainly would be people who would not use the product if it were banned. Illegal activity might be a grounds for denying expensive medical treatments. It would increase protections of people who are vitcitms of second hand smoke. It might make the message of the dangers of smoking clearer ...[text shortened]... rid of the social smoking aspect in many settings. We ban less dangerous, less costly things.